Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 3, 2014 11:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Without endorsing the Obama/Kerry approach at all, what exactly is "it" that they are supposed to do? Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia over the Crimean Peninsula, a piece of territory which they pretty much control already? Russia "gave" it to Ukraine 50 years ago, complete with a huge Russian naval base, I guess now they're taking it back. Remember folks, this is a country with a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons. Ukrainians are probably regretting that they let Russian con them into giving up their nukes back in the 90s.

Anyway, I'd love to hear what all you hawks are suggesting. US invasion? Move naval vessels into striking position? Airstrikes? Or my personal favorite: arm local proxy militias?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Mar 3, 2014 12:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Yup. Ex KGB vs Community organizers and the like.

Putin won this round and he knows it.

If I were in charge the missile defense shield we didn't deploy in Poland because Putin yelled at BO would be in C-17s headed to Warsaw tomorrow......

Don't give them too much credit for their "massive arsenal" of warheads. Warheads without delivery systems don't figure into the deterrence equation.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Mar 4, 2014 2:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Gotta agree with David Ignatius' piece in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-putins-error-in-ukraine-is-the-kind-that-leads-to-catastrophe/2014/03/02/d376603e-a249-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
'Napoleon is said to have cautioned during an 1805 battle: “When the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.” The citation is also sometimes rendered as “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Whatever the precise wording, the admonition is a useful starting point for thinking about the Ukraine situation.'

There's also the oldie and goodie about not loosing your head when everyone around you is loosing theirs.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 4, 2014 9:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Fred Kaplan has an interesting and related take on this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/03/how_to_punish_vladimir_putin_for_the_ukraine_crimea_crisis.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Mar 4, 2014 9:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Kaplan's take:

"So, given that Russia isn’t helping out much in the world anyway, the best way to impose “costs” and “consequences” on Putin’s behavior is to ignore him."

Of course. Absolutely. Moving on without him would be crippling. To be a player on the world stage involves, by definition, ..... others.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 3, 2014 1:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

"Don't give them too much credit for their "massive arsenal" of warheads. Warheads without delivery systems don't figure into the deterrence equation."

Wha? They've got hundreds of deployed, fully-operational, strategic weapons. I'm guessing there are a few of those that'll still fly. You willing to take the chance? Eek.

Putin hasn't won anything. Putin had Ukraine yanked from his sphere of influence after the decisive ouster of his puppet regime in Kiev. He's simply trying to maintain some of the control that he thought he'd secured long-term with the previous government.

Bottom line is: Russia is going to continue to protect its interests and the US is going to protect its interests. To get bullied into a conflict in Russia's backyard with none of our vital interests at stake would be foolhardy in the extreme. Everybody just needs to calm down.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 3, 2014 1:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Yes; the irony is recall how pissed off we all were in 1979/1980? In the end, the Hawks SHOULD'VE said "okay, we will GIVE you all the gold medals you want, IF you follow thru and invade Afghanistan, pleeeze!" Reagan liked to take credit (what a joke), but the only externalist factor (plenty internal to the regime) that toppled the USSR was the 10 yr war...

So, think about it, dummies...oh, yeah, human rights...ahem; there's another "A" continent full of them...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 4, 2014 12:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Incorrect Tell! I've got you now!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-06-gorbachev-reagan_x.htm
Heintz, Jim (June 6, 2004). "Gorbachev mourns loss of honest rival" (Reprint). Associated Press. USA Today.

Gorbachev on Reagan:

Those were years, Gorbachev said, "when everyone felt that we lived under the threat of nuclear conflict, and it felt as if the arms race was spiraling out of control, that we couldn't control the military machine properly."

"He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War," he added, his voice often falling to near-inaudible levels as he spoke in a room lined with memorabilia.

.....
Unless, of course, you are privy to information that Gorby isn't...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2014 1:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Damn! Hoisted on my own petard!

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Mar 3, 2014 9:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

I think a few other things happened on the way through the Cold War, besides a ten year losing war in Afghanistan, that led to 25 December 1991.

I still can't believe it went down as peacefully as it did.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2014 5:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Oh yeah, I think it was doomed to failure from the start...they never had the base to support the military expenditures, and a lot of this--duh--is hindsight, which we couldn't know at the time...so yea, fun to make fun, but I am a big believer in "crap, it seemed logical at the time, but crap...we didn't need to..." whatever it was we did.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 4, 2014 12:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Incorrect Tell! I've got you now!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-06-gorbachev-reagan_x.htm
Heintz, Jim (June 6, 2004). "Gorbachev mourns loss of honest rival" (Reprint). Associated Press. USA Today.

Gorbachev on Reagan:

Those were years, Gorbachev said, "when everyone felt that we lived under the threat of nuclear conflict, and it felt as if the arms race was spiraling out of control, that we couldn't control the military machine properly."

"He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War," he added, his voice often falling to near-inaudible levels as he spoke in a room lined with memorabilia.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 4, 2014 1:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Saying that he "entered into history" that way isn't the same thing as endorsing that point of view.

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html

Excerpts below:

But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.

...

Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2014 2:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Excellent...

:)

[we could practically write for ea other...hmm, you might wanna be scared about that, eh?]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 5, 2014 6:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

He didn't say that Reagan "entered into history".
He said:
"He has already entered history as A MAN WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL in bringing about the end of the Cold War,"

Note the emphasis.

Why are you arguing against the clarity of that comment?
And Tell, come on, you're doing it too?

You don't have to like Reagan, but blatantly ingoring that clear and important part of a what Gorby to fit your own ideas demonstrates a clear bias.

Also, pointing out that Gorby didn't admit to being "intimidated" is immaterial. Intimidation isn't the only way to get things done, nor was I suggesting that Reagan intimidated Gorby...
Nor would I expect a world leader to be like, "yeah, that guy really scared me." Have you seen that elsewhere in world leaders?

The additional point, on the selection of Gorby, is also completely immaterial to the question at hand... so far out of the arena it doesn't merit further discussion.

This post was modified by kochman on 2014-03-05 14:07:49

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 5, 2014 8:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

I understand his comment perfectly. What I don't understand is your rambling comment above. I'm pretty confident that the long passages I quoted pretty much refute the tiny, out-of-context snippets of quotes that you posted.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 5, 2014 12:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Gorbachev said: "He has already entered history as A MAN WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL in bringing about the end of the Cold War,"
Which is pretty clear.

You interpreted that as...
Gorbachev said "(reagan) entered into history."
And I'm the one using "tiny, out-of-context snippets"?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 5, 2014 1:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Don't make me spell it out for you, Rob. Life is too short.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 5, 2014 3:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Unfortunately, your attempt to counter the information provided by the quote in question was (inevitably) dismal, because you're arguing against a clear statement with relatively unrelated counter-quotes...
All they do is prove that Reagan wasn't the only factor in every level of the end of the CW, which no one that I know has ever claimed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 6, 2014 7:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

So I do have to spell it out. Okay.

I don't find that quote to be clear at all, Rob. To me, his saying that Reagan "entered into history" that way makes no real comment on his own personal feelings about the matter (to the extent that Gorbachev or any one person should have the last word on such a complicated topic).

I simply wanted to provide more information about his true feelings. I think it's clear that Gorby was pretty sour on the idea that Reagan (and not he) was the primary force behind the end of the Cold War. In his telling, the primary forces were internal. Reagan's importance was in recognizing that Gorbachev was a serious force for change and openness. He may be remembered for "tear down this wall," but his actual approach to Gorbachev was far more nurturing. But to his credit, he didn't fuck things up. So he's got that going for him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 6, 2014 8:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Well, certainly if you reduce the sentence down to "entered into history" it gives a different meaning than the complete sentence.

I am not defending the view that Reagan was the "primary" force behind the end of the Cold War... I think I've made that clear.
He was, as Gorby said, instrumental.

I think the disconnect here is that you are trying to argue a point that I am not making... and the snarky "spell it out" can be omitted in the future, hopefully.

I think his teamwork with Gorby, as you point out, was a major factor in it all too, not the rhetoric.

As we all know, the economic system of the CCCP was doomed to fail at some point... they bought a new lease on life after WW2 when they raped and pillaged the Bloc. The lease, however, remained temporary.

I would argue that Carter, Ford, Nixon, Bush Sr, etc did little to affect the fall of the CCCP. Reagan was instrumental.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 6, 2014 9:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

I will omit "spell it out" the day that I don't have to spell everything out for you. Until then..

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 6, 2014 12:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

You think it's extravagent for me to ask what exactly the hell you mean when you clearly fail to comprehend a simple sentence, and put relatively unrelated quotes up?

It didn't want to make assumptions, as you have done.
The assumption you were making led to you failing to comprehend my point.

So, if you want to debate in a civil manner, I'm good with it.

If you want to be snarky, I will not be replying any further.

I know we have a sorted past, but I've made my efforts to move on, and I ask that you do the same.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 6, 2014 11:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

I know the three of us are even getting bored w this, but one little tidbit that I have from personal experience: my dad, long since passed, and older brother (the CREAM fan) always wanted to travel on the OrExpress across Russia, and got their chance in the early 90s right after it "opened up" for US sorts...

When they got back (both loved it, of course), my dad, as the old conservative said, very first thing: "I cannot believe we EVER felt threatened by THAT..." (went on to explain the abject poverty implied to him that they were NO Super Power; alt Ho is that's WHY there's so much poverty, but you get the idea) and the completely liberal brother sez "I cannot believe they duped ANY wanna-be socialists ever" (ie, that it really was an amazingly repressive police state, but one more like a house of cards, and not the Marx-ist experiment anyone of the 30s hoped for...duh, of course).

Obviously, not informed, historical research, but they really saw the same thing, and were impressed in the same way, as diff as ea was politically, social outlook, etc, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 6, 2014 11:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Well, I am bored of splitting hairs over the exact meaning of G's statements, but not with the subject at hand. I spend a couple of weeks in the Soviet Union in the summer of 1988 (Russia and Ukraine) with a group from high school. I'd say I had pretty much the exact same impression as your bro and dad. The people seemed miserable and dirty to me. I'm not saying that they were, but that's what it seemed like to a 17-year-old on his first trip there. The contrast with the US was quite stark. Our movements were quite restricted, and it was also abundantly clear that we were being watched, which I guess is no big surprise in hindsight, but it was pretty scary at the time.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 6, 2014 1:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Oh yeah, that musta been REALLY cool...in a scary way, but still...what an opportunity. I was in Israel that yr, researching in the Negev Desert (that was a v safe yr or two; loved it there).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Mar 5, 2014 1:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

http://www.salon.com/topic/the_real_reagan/

I always dug the monkey....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLtRHN7fsgY&;feature=kp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc1flR0LgwY&;feature=kp

Best artist clive ever signed (that includes patti and the boys)

This post was modified by bluedevil on 2014-03-05 21:43:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2014 1:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Sorry, didn't see I was "in" here...I dont' actually believe that Gorby meant it the way you interpret it, but even if he did, that's the MYTH. The fall of the USSR was underway prior to Reagan...seriously; look at the economics; but, this is JUST like your thought that WE helped the ruskies win WWII when Rob and I pointed out that the BofB and Stalingrad already doomed them, prior to any of our help arriving...

Taking the tail end because it fits the hypothesis is simply missing all the other factors that had come to bear prior (ha! great pun there, eh? "bear"...cool).

Anyhoo, I understand why the myth "works", but it's not just me; there are lots of historians that don't see it as simple as Reagan won the Cold War. But, we agree to disagree; it's no bias, BTW, against Reagan, cause he did more than enough to prove his idiocy on his own (like most of them, eh?), but this is separate from that overall personality failure.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 5, 2014 3:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Again, I don't think Reagan was the only factor.
Was the fall inevitable? Yes, I agree.
Was Reagan involved in the last years? Yes, no one denies that.
Do I believe his acts, speeches, etc. contributed to the acceleration of the collapse? Yes... this is the bone of contention.

I don't except the over-determined view of "it was going to happen" at some point as diminishing the contributions of those who finally made it happen.

It's like saying, well, the French Revolution was bound to happen, so Robespierre et al, they were just in the right place at the right time. I don't believe that...

There are a lot of historians that agree with both arguments, Tell... that's kind of a cop out. I tend to support more the ideas of the agency of man verse over-determined structures being the changing force in history.

EDIT: Regarding Stalingrad and the US giving aid to the CCCP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold and other minerals)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941), these supplies were to be manufactured and delivered by the UK with US credit financing.
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Stalingrad = 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943

This post was modified by kochman on 2014-03-05 23:30:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2014 4:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Oh yeah, we're probably cool on that then--ie, I agree it's multivariate, and only get pissed when the folks say "Reagan WON it!"...just quibbling about that extreme view...those that overstate it.

And again, I know all the figs for our votes/aid/etc, but the fact remains, on the ground, the vehicles/planes/artillery/etc. that "won" the battle were not the stuff we sent them, they just didn't get there prior to summer of 42 (russkies).

Where we really made a difference--our stuff that is--is that they never could have made the "drive" to Berlin because we DID give them the boots (literally) and transport to do that...it would have taken another yr or two, minimum.

So again, a matter of degree; I say, "Nazis had lost momentum, and were headed downhill prior to US support materials arriving in huge amounts" while you see the all important aspect of "without our aid, the russkies would've had a much harder time of it, etc., etc."...I know YOU understand the complexity, but other folks that overstate it (WE won the war, russkies were secondary) are offbase.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 6, 2014 5:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Oh absolutely both were multivariate!
I think when people say "Reagan won the CW", they don't (generally) mean single-handedly. He was just, as Gorbachev said so clearly, "instrumental". There could have been other instrumental people to do it perhaps, though not from the offerings of the D Party at the time. The D's hadn't shifted into today's neocon Ds yet.

The USSR provided the most manpower, in WW2, tying down 45 German "Armies", while on the Western Front we fought only 5!

But... I would stop short of saying the Russians would have defeated Germany without our aid (including the financial aid before our solid material aid got there).
Stalingrad wasn't the end for Germany, it was the beginning of the end of a world effort against them...

Futhermore, without the UK/US strategic bombing of Germany, plus the other (albeit relatively minor) fronts of Africa, Italy and then France, as well as the much smaller efforts of the raid on Norway, etc which tied down yet more German troops, air force and resources... I am not sure the Russians would have defeated Germany at all.

If you want to discuss this further, which I would be happy to do, perhaps we should take it somewhere else?

This post was modified by kochman on 2014-03-06 13:35:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 6, 2014 6:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Cool; yeah, we're fine--besides, we gotta do this HERE every five yrs to bore the beejeebers outta everyone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Mar 6, 2014 7:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: I'd kill to see just a little trouble around here

This place has provided an excellent alternative to Ambien.


Good God, what's happened to us? It's a sad state of affairs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2PhYFK8Bw

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 6, 2014 11:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'd kill to see just a little trouble around here

Yes, I fear we figuratively and LITERALLY "put Rob to sleep"...after surviving Dire, Thatcher, and Blair, he succumbs to our mind-numbing "secret weapon": The DEAD Forum (means what it sez, eh?...).

Putin? We don't need no stinking Putin for the obliteration of the Free World! We do it here, one tired brain cell at a time...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Mar 6, 2014 11:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'd kill to see just a little trouble around here

Well, this place is certainly Putin-me to sleep lately (insert rim-shot here).


With puns like that its no wonder our resident self-absorbed and self-appointed intellectual Scotsman is such a rare sight in these parts.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Mar 6, 2014 8:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: We don't need no more trouble

Hahahaha, yes! Why not. It provides me a cathartic historical release... a form of mental masturbation.